How much access is too much access?

Members of the European Parliament are to vote next week on whether to tighten up rules for lobbyists by imposing greater disclosure on those who are given entrance passes for the Parliament’s buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg.

At issue is whether to merge the Parliament’s own register of those holding lobbyists’ passes with a register of lobbyists and other interest groups established three years ago by the European Commission.

The Commission’s register requires lobbyists to make a declaration of their income and who they are working for, albeit not in great detail.

The merged register would make the receipt of a lobbyist’s annual pass into the Parliament conditional on signing up to these stricter measures. But the Commission’s register is voluntary: registration is not a mandatory prerequisite for those operating as lobbyists in and around the EU, and MEPs are now arguing over whether a voluntary register is sufficient.

The vote, which will take place on Wednesday (11 May) during the plenary session, comes at an unhappy moment for the Parliament. In March, a team of Sunday Times journalists who had posed as lobbyists claimed that three MEPs were prepared to propose changes to EU legislation in return for payment. Two of the three MEPs resigned after publication of the allegations while a third, Adrian Severin, a Romanian centre-left MEP, has been thrown out of his political group.

Jerzy Buzek, the Parliament’s president, set up a special taskforce to examine the need to tighten up rules of conduct for MEPs, which is expected to report back by the end of July. At the same time he controversially ordered that lobbyists should sign in every time they enter the Parliament to meet MEPs and their staff, in order to establish a record of meetings taking place.

Even established lobbyists, who previously had easy access to the Parliament using their annual passes, now face cumbersome paperwork and security checks. In a letter sent to Buzek last month, Lyn Trytsman-Gray, the president of the Society of European Affairs Professionals (SEAP), said: “We find this action disappointing, especially as it comes on the eve of a ground-breaking common register for the Parliament and the Commission.”

Knee-jerk reaction

Lobbying and public affairs professionals believe that the reaction to the Sunday Times sting is now putting plans for a joint Commission-Parliament register in jeopardy. They fear a knee-jerk reaction that would undermine co-operation between EU institutions and the lobbying industry.

To impose further restrictions on lobbyists is to draw the wrong lessons from the Sunday Times episode, they argue.

SEAP’s code of conduct already bans any “financial inducements” as part of lobbying activities, with penalties for those in breach, and the lobbyists believe they are being unfairly treated. In her letter, Trytsman-Gray asked Buzek to explain the purpose of centrally recording who MEPs are meeting and the use to which the collected data would be put.

It is clear that Buzek’s decision to make lobbyists sign in at the Parliament on the occasion of each visit has damaged the trust between EU institutions and lobbyists. What is not yet clear is whether the damage is so great as to jeopardise the chances of launching a joint register.

The launch was planned for June. It would see the amalgamation of the Parliament’s register, which dates back to 1996, and the Commission’s register, launched in June 2008. The Commission argues that, although registration is voluntary, organisations do sign up for fear of being seen as having something to hide.

When the Commission register was first launched, MEPs called for registration to become compulsory, but gave way on the grounds that any register, whether voluntary or compulsory, would be an improvement on the status quo. The Sunday Times’ report has reawakened the calls for registration to be mandatory.

Gerald Häfner, a German Green MEP, said a voluntary register with the sole sanction of withdrawal of accreditation was too weak. “We have no sanctions,” he said, adding that losing access badges was not a great problem for lobbyists as most meetings took place outside the Parliament.

Diana Wallis, a UK Liberal MEP who led negotiations with the Commission on merging the registers, and Carlo Casini, an Italian centre-right MEP who drafted the constitutional affairs committee’s report on the subject, do not want the launch of the joint register to be delayed by further discussion of how to respond to the Sunday Times scandal.

The Commission agrees. “We should not let the issue of whether it should be mandatory delay the entry into force of the register,” said a spokesman for Maroš Šefc?ovic?, the European commissioner for inter-institutional relations and administration, adding that changing the agreement now to make it a mandatory register would delay its inception “by months, if not years”.

Next steps

Some MEPs believe that a compulsory register will emerge eventually, if not immediately.

Matthias Groote, a German centre-left MEP, said: “The next step will be to extend the joint register to all the EU institutions and to convince the Commission and the Council to make it mandatory. We need clear rules to prevent people and organisations from influencing EU decision-making in a non-transparent manner.”

Supporters of the voluntary register, including the Commission, some MEPs and lobbyists themselves, argue that the steps taken since 2008 have improved the transparency of the lobbying process, while there is still uncertainty over what a compulsory system might achieve.

But this incremental, softly-softly approach has been thrown into doubt by the Sunday Times sting. MEPs may feel that the Parliament has been so humiliated that if it is to restore its reputation and its pride, it must take more drastic steps to govern politicians’ relations with lobbyists.

The ultimate aim of those seeking the highest degree of transparency about lobbying of the EU is to bring the Council of Ministers on board as well. But if the Commission, the Parliament and the lobbyists cannot agree among themselves, then further extension of the register looks highly unlikely.

Authors:

Related stories on these topics:

A mandatory unified register is the best thing to do, not only for the Sunday Times episode, but because if there is a further step to take, then that step is not only to merge the EP’s and Commission’s registers, but also to make this unique register obbligatory. This would mean an improvement in transparency for lobbying in the Commission and a better coordination between Commission and EP. The worst thing to do would be to take a step back from the progress made by the EP until now.
Apart from this, it could be possible to think about a voluntary register for the Council, which in the future could merge with the other register and become mandatory.

A mandatory unified register is the best thing to do, not only for the Sunday Times episode, but because if there is a further step to take, then that step is not only to merge the EP’s and Commission’s registers, but also to make this unique register obbligatory. This would mean an improvement in transparency for lobbying in the Commission and a better coordination between Commission and EP. The worst thing to do would be to take a step back from the progress made by the EP until now.
Apart from this, it could be possible to think about a voluntary register for the Council, which in the future could merge with the other register and become mandatory.

A mandatory unified register is the best thing to do, not only for the Sunday Times episode, but because if there is a further step to take, then that step is not only to merge the EP’s and Commission’s registers, but also to make this unique register obbligatory. This would mean an improvement in transparency for lobbying in the Commission and a better coordination between Commission and EP. The worst thing to do would be to take a step back from the progress made by the EP until now.
Apart from this, it could be possible to think about a voluntary register for the Council, which in the future could merge with the other register and become mandatory.

A mandatory unified register is the best thing to do, not only for the Sunday Times episode, but because if there is a further step to take, then that step is not only to merge the EP’s and Commission’s registers, but also to make this unique register obbligatory. This would mean an improvement in transparency for lobbying in the Commission and a better coordination between Commission and EP. The worst thing to do would be to take a step back from the progress made by the EP until now.
Apart from this, it could be possible to think about a voluntary register for the Council, which in the future could merge with the other register and become mandatory.

Posted on 5/7/11 | 5:50 AM CET

Frank Schmidt-Hullmann

There should not only be an obligatory registration but the contributions to hearings and at public consultations and permant badges should be limited to those who have registered themselves or have been explicitly invited by the institution concerned. We as a german trade union have registered some years ago and it is no big formality. And because we are not based in Brussels we have to sign each time we want to see MEPs, commission employees etc. And – though it is a bit waste of time to do this if you have frequent talks with MEPs etc – why not? We have nothing to hide. The only thing which we would like would be a permanent badge. Who does not want to register surely has some agenda to hide from the general public or is even part of a network to bribe members of the Brussels institutions.

Posted on 5/23/11 | 10:30 AM CET

Frank Schmidt-Hullmann

There should not only be an obligatory registration but the contributions to hearings and at public consultations and permant badges should be limited to those who have registered themselves or have been explicitly invited by the institution concerned. We as a german trade union have registered some years ago and it is no big formality. And because we are not based in Brussels we have to sign each time we want to see MEPs, commission employees etc. And – though it is a bit waste of time to do this if you have frequent talks with MEPs etc – why not? We have nothing to hide. The only thing which we would like would be a permanent badge. Who does not want to register surely has some agenda to hide from the general public or is even part of a network to bribe members of the Brussels institutions.

Posted on 5/23/11 | 10:30 AM CET

Frank Schmidt-Hullmann

There should not only be an obligatory registration but the contributions to hearings and at public consultations and permant badges should be limited to those who have registered themselves or have been explicitly invited by the institution concerned. We as a german trade union have registered some years ago and it is no big formality. And because we are not based in Brussels we have to sign each time we want to see MEPs, commission employees etc. And – though it is a bit waste of time to do this if you have frequent talks with MEPs etc – why not? We have nothing to hide. The only thing which we would like would be a permanent badge. Who does not want to register surely has some agenda to hide from the general public or is even part of a network to bribe members of the Brussels institutions.

Posted on 5/23/11 | 10:30 AM CET

Frank Schmidt-Hullmann

There should not only be an obligatory registration but the contributions to hearings and at public consultations and permant badges should be limited to those who have registered themselves or have been explicitly invited by the institution concerned. We as a german trade union have registered some years ago and it is no big formality. And because we are not based in Brussels we have to sign each time we want to see MEPs, commission employees etc. And – though it is a bit waste of time to do this if you have frequent talks with MEPs etc – why not? We have nothing to hide. The only thing which we would like would be a permanent badge. Who does not want to register surely has some agenda to hide from the general public or is even part of a network to bribe members of the Brussels institutions.